JB Trustees Ltd & Ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

Standing under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 depends on a particular grievance about the decision in the statutory context. A person who has withdrawn detailed objections, abandoned participation in the appeal and then challenges the permission merely because it does not produce an anticipated financial benefit will not ordinarily be a “person aggrieved”.

A planning condition may lawfully secure the possibility of future connections to adjoining land without requiring an actual connection, particularly where the developer lacks control of that land. The court must respect the decision-maker’s planning judgment unless a public law error is shown. Reasons are adequate if they explain the decision and the main controversial issues; the decision-maker need not explain every alternative condition not imposed.

The claimants, trustees and beneficiaries connected with the Seymour Holdings Pension Fund, applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash an inspector’s decision allowing an appeal against Broadland District Council’s failure to determine an outline application for up to 80 houses at Salhouse Road, Rackheath.

The claimants owned a narrow strip of land adjoining the appeal site. They challenged condition 8, which required pedestrian and cycle paths on the site to be suitable for connection to paths or land outside it. Their objections had initially been detailed but were withdrawn before the informal hearing, with a request that the inspector disregard them. The issues were standing, the lawfulness of condition 8, and the adequacy of the inspector’s reasons.

1. Standing. The application was dismissed because the claimants were not “persons aggrieved” under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The concept is broad and context-sensitive. Ordinarily, participation in the statutory process is relevant, but it is not an absolute prerequisite. Here, however, the claimants had withdrawn their representations, abandoned the appeal process and made no objection to the inspector or proposal for any condition. Their only grievance was the loss of an hoped-for ransom opportunity. That was not a planning grievance or a prejudicial effect on a relevant interest.
2. Condition 8. The classic three-part test in Newbury District Council v Secretary of State [1981] A.C. 578 was satisfied. Condition 8 served a planning purpose, related fairly and reasonably to the permitted development, and was not unreasonable in the relevant public-law sense. The condition was precise and enforceable in requiring paths at specified locations.
3. The inspector distinguished between connectivity, meaning actual interconnection, and connectibility, meaning the capacity for connection. Condition 8 secured the latter. It did not require the developer to undertake works on land outside its control. The inspector was entitled to adopt a proportionate and pragmatic approach, having regard to the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the absence of any policy requiring the more onerous condition or a “Grampian” condition.
4. No material or immaterial consideration error was shown. The court could not substitute its planning judgment for that of the inspector. The inspector was satisfied with the access arrangements and did not consider the external connections necessary for highway safety.
5. Reasons. The reasons were intelligible and adequate under South Bucks District Council v Porter [2004] UKHL 33. They explained the policy context, why permission was acceptable, and why condition 8 was imposed. The inspector was not required to explain why he had not adopted every alternative condition. The claim was dismissed.

First-instance application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The court dismissed the challenge to the inspector’s decision.